When a reviewer addresses the issue or matter at hand, and not
merely the person who puts it forth, he engages in good scholarship. By this
criterion, Father John's critique of my book is left wanting of good
scholarship. Reading his review, one would likely get the impression that my
book is based almost entirely upon the work of what he rather insultingly and
ill-advisedly calls a small band of contemporary "traditionalists,"
self-proclaimed "experts" whom he characterizes as outside the
boundaries of Orthodoxy as he conceives it and scholarship as he defines it. In
so doing, he simply ignores or fails to mention (let alone address) my numerous
citations from the Holy Fathers and cumenical Synods, all of which amply
support my thesis.

The most obvious and serious deficiency in Father John's
criticism of my book, therefore, lies in his penchant for ad hominem arguments
and his dismissal of any source that does not originate in what he considers
"mainstream" Orthodoxy. He writes, in this vein, that "[Mr.
Barnes] has simply repackaged the arguments of a loud, but really rather small,
group of self-proclaimed experts on Orthodoxy, whose ideas are really at
variance with those of the vast majority of reputable Orthodox theologians and
bishops." In his opening remarks, he sounds this same trumpet: "[Mr.
Barnes has] limited his research to a very small group whose ideas are far
outside the mainstream of Orthodox theology." And in closing his critique,
he beats this dead horse one final time: "[This book] is an alarming
manifestation of the growth of extremism among those calling themselves
Orthodox. One would do better to study the works of credible Orthodox
theologians...." The man protests a bit much, I must say, about how
authentic and official his opinions are and how inauthentic and unofficial the
opinions of those with whom he disagrees are.

All of these rather sophomoric observations by the reviewer
beg one question: By what authority does one measure the reputability or
qualifications of any given writer, and especially in the Church? It is this
very question that I treat extensively in Appendix I of my book. My
observations, in this section, about Professor John Erickson's mindset can be
equally applied to Father John. In fact, I have argued that we have in
contemporary Orthodoxy, not a clash between self-made "experts" and
what Father John calls "reputable thinkers" (a crude distinction), but
between what I have characterized as a clash of two mindsets:
ecumenism-influenced subjectivism and fidelity to the Patristic consensus. There
is no need to repeat my arguments in this respect.

I suspect that Father John gave my book a merely cursory
glance, rather than a careful reading, when he remarks: "...[H]e never
cites the two most important official responses of the Church to the Protestant
Reformation: the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople
and the Lutheran theologians between 1576 and 1581; and the decisions of the
Council of Jerusalem of 1672." In fact, on pp. 35-36, I write:

Unfortunately, classical Protestantism
is cut from the same cloth as Papism,while at the same time it is
often much further from Orthodox Christianity than is Roman Catholicism. We
cite again Father Michaels useful summary:

In the l6th Century, despite the Turkish yoke, Patriarch
Jeremiah II of Constantinople rejected the Lutheran overtures in his Three
Answers on the ground of heresy while the Council of Constantinople
(1638) repudiated the Calvinist heresies; the Council of Jassy (1642) with
Peter Moghila denounced all Western innovations and the Council of
Jerusalem (1672) under the famous Patriarch Dositheus published its 18 decrees
together with the pronouncements of the Patriarch, Confessio Dosithei,
forming thereby the shield of truth which opposed the spirit of the
ancient Church to the heresies of both the Latins and the Protestants
(See I Mesolora, Symbol of the Eastern Orthodox Church (vol. IV),
Athens, 1904). Of course, the heresy of the Papists and Protestants is a clear
affirmation of the Orthodox Church as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church as declared the Council of Constantinople (1672), the Encyclical of
the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), the Council of Constantinople (1872), the
Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, the Holy Russian Synod of 1904, and the
memorable words of [the] Patriarch of Constantinople, Joachim II, Our
desire is that all heretics shall come to the bosom of the Orthodox Church of
Christ which alone is able to give them salvation ... (in Chrestos
Androutsos, The Basis for Union ... Constantinople, 1905, p. 36).

I am, indeed, left wondering whether Father John has thoroughly
read the very texts he falsely accuses me of failing to mention in my book. For
example, the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) is scathing in its evaluation of
Calvinist Protestants, forcefully labeling them heretics. Consider the following
excerpts from the minutes of this Synod (The Acts and Decrees of The Synod of
Jerusalem, trans. J. N. W. B. Robertson [London: Thomas Baker, 1899]):

For the Calvinists..., gratuitously indulging in wickedness,
say that our Apostolic and Holy Church, the Eastern to wit, thinketh
concerning God and divine things as they themselves do wrongly think. And not
only by their words, but also by their writings, do these heretics...endeavor
to malign us....

It is to be noted, therefore, that the leaders of these
heretics, well knowing the doctrine of the Eastern Church, declare that she
maintaineth the same as they themselves do in what concerneth God and divine
things....For being severed, or rather rent away from the Westerns, and
consequently being absolutely rejected by the whole Catholic Church, and
convicted, they are manifestly heretics, and the chiefest of heretics....

[H]e who is not adorned with the Church's name, cannot even
be called a Christian, much less be a Christian.

Furthermore, in the "Confession" of Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem,
which is appended to the decisions of this illustrious Synod, we find the
following:

Decree XI. We believe to be members of the Catholic [i.e.,
Orthodox] Church all the Faithful, and only the Faithful; who, forsooth, having
received the blameless Faith of the Saviour Christ, from Christ Himself, and the
Apostles, and the Holy cumenical Synods, adhere to the same without wavering;
although some of them may be guilty of all manner of sins. For unless the
Faithful, even when living in sin, where members of the Church, they could not
be judged by the Church. But now being judged by her, and called to repentance,
and guided into the way of her salutary precepts, though they may be still
defiled with sins, for this only, that they have not fallen into despair, and
that they cleave to the Catholic and Orthodox faith, they are, and are regarded
as, members of the Catholic Church.

This Decree wholly supports the thesis of my book.

Father John accuses me of overlooking the historical nuances of the term
"heretic" and of applying woodenly to our modern times various Sacred
Canons and statements made by the Holy Fathers. This is a rather astounding
accusation, given
the precision with which I treated these nuances throughout my book, including a special
discussion of the term "heretic" in Appendix II. Again, it is not necessary
to repeat my points here. One need simply read my book. I have no doubt that an objective reader will find
Father John's remarks on this issue curious, at best. Again, one is left with
the suspicion that, outraged by its thesis, he did not in fact read my bookor
at least did not read it with care and comprehension.

With regard to his comments on ecumenism and my alleged unfamiliarity with
the movement, let me note that Father John Morris is an active ecumenist and has
his own view of the subject: a view which is fanciful, in my mind, and simply
ignores the facts. He dismisses out of hand, as products from the fringes of
Orthodoxy, the voluminous anti-ecumenical writings (many of which are easily obtainable on my site) of both Orthodox traditionalists and
Orthodox Christians of a traditionalist bent who choose to remain within the modernist
Orthodox jurisdictions. These writings, most of which contain statements taken
from the "Orthodox ecumenists" themselves, fly in the face of Father John's portrayal of
a benign and responsible Orthodox ecumenism.

A competent scholar cannot honestly
dismiss material as bogus only because he does not like its source or because it
might convict him of irresponsibility. It is one
thing to proclaim that the Orthodox ecumenists are not like the Protestant
ecumenists. It is quite another to respond to quotations from the Orthodox
ecumenists that not only support many of the presuppositions of the
"branch theory" of the Church, but which have often been made in the
form of joint statements ("agreed statements") with Protestant
ecumenists themselves.

Some of the alleged "errors" in my book, I might further remark, are errors
only by virtue of Father John's
selective use of materials or, once more, his lack of familiarity with the great
diversity of practice that has prevailed in the Orthodox Church on a number of
practical issues. I will offer but one example. His statement that the
canonical witness of the Church (he cites the ninety-fifth Canon of the Fifth-Sixth
Synod) provides for the reception of Monophysites by confession, and not
Chrismation, as my book claims, is a bit heavy-handed, if not downright wrong
from an historical standpoint.

In fact, as Professor John Karmiris points out, since the middle of the
eleventh century, "a stricter practice began to be introduced, that in
addition to a libellus, they [the Monophysites] should be anointed with
Holy Chrism, as we infer from the Pandect of Nikon, who, summarizing the
writings of Timothy the Presbyter, adds, 'We see now in the great Catholic
Churches, that is, in the Patriarchates and Metropolitinates and the others,
that they anoint, but do not Baptize, the Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, akephaloi,*
and those like them, when they return to the Orthodox Faith'" (Dogmatika
kai Symbolika Mnemeia tes Orthodoxou Katholikes Ekklesias, Athens, 1953,
Vol. II, p 1009). Karmriris also cites the great canonist Balsamon (and his
commentary on the Canon in question), who notes that some heretics are received
by Baptism and others by Chrismation only. Among the latter, he includes
Monophysites, thus establishing that this practice prevailed in his day, too. In
1301, moreover, the Synod of Constantinople declared that the Nestorians should
be received into Orthodoxy by Chrismation, among whom Karmiris ranks all
Monophysites. The issue, then, is not as simple as Father John would have
it.

Unfortunately, rather than attempt to find what is proper practice,
many in the Church today want to argue for what it is that they do, at times
doing so with an inattention to matters that produces frightful
misrepresentations of things as they actually are. I expose this type of
untraditional argumentation in Appendix I, with regard to the mindset of Professor
John Erickson, who, in the face of a clearly discernible Patristic consensus,
attempts to undermine the traditional Orthodox baptismal practice of triple
immersion through some archeological arguments of highly questionable accuracy. Also, on p.
44 of my book I mention the much-abused phrase of St. John of Damascus
concerning the Monophysites. Ignoring prevailing
tradition, some modernist Orthodox today receive Monophysite heretics by confession and not Chrismation,
referring to the Damascene's statement that the Monophysites are "in every
way Orthodox" in order to justify their position. St. John, however, states
that, except for the fact that "they are heretics," the Monophysites are in
every other way Orthodox (that is, in piety, liturgical practice, and so on).
This often misrepresented quotation gives us some insight into what motivates
those who, rather than looking for consistency in diversity, would choose to
support what they want, what they do, and what they consider correct at the cost
of accuracy and the truth. This is not consistent with the Orthodox ethos. It
also does not even qualify as poor scholarship; it is no kind of scholarship at
all.

Father John's references to various texts about the reception
of converts into Orthodoxy are offered as though I do not quote or cite them,
when in fact I do, and as though they were definitive and stood alone. The very
point of my book is that one must understand these works in context and find, in
fact, the Church's consensus on this matter. To imagine that such issues are not
subject to historical analysis is to treat them in an isolated and unscholarly
way. Father George Metallinos' excellent historical study, I Confess One
Baptism, makes precisely this point. And his conclusion, like my own, is
that, granting a great diversity even today in this regard, the standard method
for receiving converts into Orthodoxy, through the centuries, is that of
Baptism.

While my writings in this respect may fall into the category of
pseudo-scholarship from a self-proclaimed expert and a follower of cult leaders from the fringes
of the Church, as Father John has previously made clear in his own comments about
me and some of the experts whom I quote,
Father George, a professor of theology at the University of Athens and a very
competent scholar, is certainly not a fringe figure in Orthodox scholarship,
even by Father John's somewhat bizarre standards.

Citing certain Synods and Canons, while ignoring those which make contrary
judgments, is not a fair approach to finding that consensus that can be drawn
from the extant data. One may disagree on what that consensus is and how to
interpret those data, but it is certainly not constructive simply to offer what
supports one's own view and ignore all else (something which, in all fairness,
Father John would have to admit I did not do in my book).

Father John writes: "Perhaps the most serious flaw in Mr. Barnes' work is
its basically unorthodox approach to the subject. He shows this by his criticism
of an Orthodox representative at an ecumenical discussion who responded, 'I do
not know,' when asked by an Anglican, 'Are we, according to your opinion, inside
or outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?' It is precisely this
healthy recognition of mystery that characterizes sound Orthodox theology."
Incredibly, Father John accuses me of failing to recognize the mysteries (i.e.,
unknowns or apparent antinomies) inherent in Orthodox theological expressions.
His criticisms are misdirected, for attention to these "mysteries" is
evident throughout my book, especially in Appendix IV.

Moreover, I would argue
that he erroneously categorizes as "mysteries" views that are, in the
ecclesial consciousness as it can be discerned in the corpus of of Patristic writings,
clear-cut. As stated in the aforementioned Decree XI from the Synod of Jerusalem, as well as
in Article 5 from the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1848 (quoted in my book), those who
do not profess the Orthodox Faith, "whoever they be" (1848), are
heretics, outside of Christ's Church. Period. This is a position reflecting the
Church's traditional ecclesiology. My book expands upon this undoubted position
of the Orthodox Church, bringing in the subject of Holy Baptism, by which a
person mysteriologically enters the Church, while at the same time endeavoring
to show that, in holding this position, the Church does not make eternal (as
opposed to ecclesial) judgments on those outside Her fold.

Whether the
heterodox may be saved is indeed a mystery. I attempt to show, from Holy
Scripture and the writings of various Fathers, that we can rightly have such
hope concerning them. And if various heterodox are granted life eternal
according to the mysterious and all-wise counsel of God, then no doubt they are
made members of the Church Triumphant. But concerning the Church Militant, the
focus of my book, we cannot answer as did Nicholas Zernov in his reply to the
Anglican above. In short, Father John has misread my book. To my mind, I have adhered to
St. Gregory the Great's dictum, quoted in Appendix III: Who
is able to enter into the secret judgements of God? Wherefore those things which
in divine examination we cannot comprehend, we ought rather to fear than
curiously to discuss.

I will mention one final flaw in Father John's review,
evident when he writes: "However, [Mr. Barnes] also criticizes those who
recognize that some non-Orthodox Christians have a relationship with Christ
which, although incomplete, has some degree of validity, or that these
Christians are somehow part of the Church in a mysterious way." This
statement is only partially true. Concerning the ecclesial status of
heterodox Christians prior to death, we are in disagreement, his views being at
odds with the consensus of the Holy Fathers. Concerning the possibility of
heterodox Christians having some degree of a relationship with Christ in this
life, however, my book treats this throughout, most succinctly on p. 79, where I
state: "A failure to extend sincerely the courtesy of [the label
'Christian' to non-Orthodox Christians] causes unnecessary offense and gives the
impression that [they] have no relationship with God at all. This would place
them on the same level as pagans, which is decidedly not the case." I
support this view throughout my work. Again, Father John has failed to
assimilate what I wrote.

In closing, I would point out that Father John Morris's review of my book
is very revealing. For one thing, it shows that the traditionalist criticism of the
modernist wing of Orthodoxy is striking home. If we were actually only a "fringe" group, there would hardly be any necessity to respond to a
book like mine. I believe it is only because such criticism is finding fertile
ground within some of the modernist groups, that books like mine evoke the kind
of unbalanced and emotional responses contained in Father John's review.
Whatever the case, I am grateful to Father John for the added exposure of my book that his
review will undoubtedly bring.

* The Greek word "akephaloi" ("headless
ones") is used here for Monophysites. As St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite
remarks in his preface to the Canons of the Fourth cumenical Synod, "all
Monophysites were called akephaloi, an allusion to the fact that were cut
off from the Patriarchate of Alexandria..., and showed allegiance to no one
head but some to one and some to yet another."

** Numerous documents critiquing the position of Father John
Morris can be found on the "Baptism and the
Reception of Converts" page. At least two documents directly address Father
John's errors concerning these matters.

Another Review by an Antiochian Priest

In the March 2000 issue of the ecumenical journal Touchstone (p. 38,
"Books in Brief" section), a short review appeared by Father Patrick
Reardon, a convert to Orthodoxy from Anglicanism. I have reprinted this review
in order to demonstrate how dubious it is to write critical comments about a
book which, by his remarks, he seems not to have read. My book does not blindly and simplistically
defend the thesis he claims, nor does my book rely on spurious quotes from
"eccentric fringe groups" (the unnecessary ad hominem remarks are telling). Rather, as any
unbiased and honest reader will attest, it contains numerous theological, canonical and
Patristic references.

Written by a newcomer to Orthodoxy within the first three
years of his coming thereto, this little work shows no familiarity with the
long, intricately detailed theological and canonical complexities of the
Orthodox Tradition, especially in the literature of its myriad councils over
many centuries. The author cites no ancient theological or canonical texts as
primary sources and demonstrates familiarity with these sources in neither their
original languages nor their historical contexts. The author relies, rather, on
the more recent views of certain eccentric groups at the extreme fringes of
Orthodoxy.

Indeed, beyond asserting that all non-Orthodox should be
baptized upon their entrance into the Orthodox Church (a thesis that the
Orthodox Church does not hold nor, in fact, has ever held [and which, in fact, I
did not hold in my book!PMB]), the author says rather little related
to the title of the book. Instead, most of the book is spent lamenting the
current friendly relations that Orthodoxy cultivates with other Christians (if,
indeed, this is the case!)

In short, if someone wants to know what the Orthodox Church
believes about those outside of the Orthodox Church, this is a book to be
avoided.

Patrick Henry Reardon

The Non-Orthodox Recommended by Bishop Basil (Essey) of the Antiochian Archdiocese

Despite the strong reservations of the two aforementioned Antiochian Priests, Bishop Basil
had the following words to say in the "Ask Sayidna" column of the May 1, 2001 issue of Cross & Quill,
a publication of the Antiochian Orthodox Department of Christian Education.

Q. If you were brought up by non-
Orthodox parents or not in the Orthodox
Faith, does that mean you automatically
go to hell?

A. As you know, a lot of people who were
brought up by non-Orthodox parents or not
in the Orthodox Faith, have later been catechized
and received into the Orthodox
Church. But I assume that your question
refers specifically to those who end their
earthly lives as non-Orthodox. In his book
The Non-Orthodox (Regina Orthodox Press,
Salisbury, MA, 1999. ISBN 0-9649141-6-
6) Patrick Barnes gives a very succinct (and
very correct) answer to this question: "The
status of the heterodox (the non-Orthodox) is
properly seen in two ways. When speaking
of their ecclesial statusi.e., their relation
to the Orthodox Churchwe would say
that the heterodox cannot be seen as Her
members, because they have not been
grafted into the one true Body of Christ
through Holy Baptism." (It might be helpful
to read again my answer to the second question
in the April issue of C&Q.) "On the
other hand, when speaking of their eternal
statusi.e., the implications of this ecclesial
separationwe leave them to the mercy
of God and do not judge them. To affirm
their separation is not to imply their damnation"
(The Non-Orthodox, page 8).